Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmkg | Hacker News Reader

I agree that many companies behave unethically during negotiations with their employees.

I disagree that excuses unethical behavior on the part of the employees.

So you feel it's just for employees to hold themselves to higher ethical standards than their employer? To their own financial detriment?

I'm being pointed here, but I feel that's a fair representation of what we're talking about.

Specifically for all but the most specific competitor-worded non-competes, the company knows exactly what it's doing: retaining employees through a cheaper method than compensation.

First, I think the ethical standards one holds oneself to should be independent of who you're interacting with. Lying to a saint is the same as lying to a sinner. (I think lying is justifiable in many cases, but "lying to a bad person" is not a blanket justification.) If for no other reason, it creates a race-to-the-bottom for acceptable behavior.

Second, in this particular situation there is an above-board alternative, which is to reject the terms in a clearly-communicated fashion. Were there literally only two alternatives which were "lie by omission" and "starve" then this conversation would be different. But I think in the real world, there are more alternatives available. If there are ways of achieving the same ends without deceit, then the use of deceit is unjustified.

I used to think more in the mode of your "First" perspective. Yet the more of the world I see, the more I come to believe that in a majority of important life situations (in the US at least) acting in an unethical manner is a strictly winning strategy (from a game theory perspective, in that it trumps all possible other strategies).

Not that I'm using that as an argument to be an unethical person.

But I am saying I feel it's a justification to act in a more Rooseveltian realpolitik manner: treat someone ethically until they demonstrate a lack of ethics. And even then, strive to conduct oneself to a higher standard, but firstly protect yourself and your aims at all times.

Most unethical behavior seems advantageously predicated on others' ignoring / accepting it. To the contrary, confront it! And win!

To your second point, granted with a caveat. The "freedom to turn down a job" is a freedom many aren't afforded (and I daresay most don't have the benefit of affording at least once in their lives).

Saying "Yes, but we have better, more ethical alternatives" feels elitist and... inapplicable to the average working person.

So yes, while most people commenting here may have that option, there are a huge number that don't. (Hence why non-competes should be ruled unconstitutional)

Specifically, what do you find unethical about it?

I fail to see why not signing an agreement you disagree with is unethical.

Disagreeing with terms is not unethical. It's the "pocketing." An explicit rejection of terms is perfectly reasonable. But I think it's deceit to try and hide from the other party that you did not agree to all the terms that were offered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com